It’s Not The Arrow, It’s The Indian

Ever heard the phrase “It’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian?’ By no means politically correct these days, and if it triggered you, well, deal with it. What the phrase means is that it’s not the level or expense of the bow and arrow that provides the accuracy, it’s the skill of the archer. This is a lesson that needs to be taken to heart in the shooting world. I see, every day, people spending money for “improvements” on their guns that isn’t helping the shooter put rounds on target. Today I’m going to talk about carrying what you’re good with. So let’s get to it.

I recently read an article on the USA Carry website written by Sam Hoober titled “6 Reasons The 1911 Is The Worst Carry Gun Ever.” I’ll post a link to it in the show notes. Now, as a long-time aficionado of John Browning’s seminal fighting pistol, I love reading articles like this one. See, these days it’s de rigeur for gun writers to hate on the 1911. To be relevant in today’s world, the pundits need to wax poetic on the “advantages” of the latest piece of plastic foisted on the shooting public. Apparently, there’s a law that says you have to beatify Gaston Glock for his creation to reach the acme of the gun writer world. At least it sure seems that way, as every gun writer has written at least one article doing this.

Now, are any of the tactical Tupperware pistols out there any good? Certainly. Glock cruises on its reputation for ease of use and reliability. Sig, Smith & Wesson, and Springfield Armory all make popular, good polymer guns. They’re light, reliable, and have great ammunition capacities. Mrs. Pirate swears by her Sig 365. I myself am particularly enamored with the Sig 320, and it will probably be my next, and first, polymer pistol. However, none of the polymer offerings will be my first, or second, choice for a carry pistol. And here’s why.

I’ve carried a 1911 for longer than, probably, many of you have been alive. A 1911 was the very first pistol I shot, and that was sixty years ago. Needless to say, I’m extremely familiar with the platform, and six decades have cemented my trust in them. So I’m going to take the good Mister Hoober’s article on point by point, and give you a non-hater’s view of the gun. See, I’m not out to kiss any rings and soar to the top of the gun writer heap.

Hoober leads off with “For some reason, the 1911 hangs on. Some people insist that it’s all they would trust their life to and that it’s the greatest handgun ever made. Hogwash. Some people hear the ramblings of older shooters. During times of shortage of handguns, the proliferate nature of 1911 manufacturers may make it a more readily-available choice of pistol. At the time of its invention, it was a technological leap forward. Today? It’s aggressively obsolescent, and there is almost no tangible benefit to using one if a more modern alternative is available. If you were thinking of getting one for use as a carry gun, here are 6 reasons why it’s a terrible choice.”

So we can see right off the bat that he’s just a little opinionated. His opening statement is pretty inaccurate. I take his reference to “older shooters” to mean “shooters with decades of experience.” He mentions the “proliferate nature” of the 1911. While a term not really applicable to anything manufactured, I understand that he means “lots of manufacturers still making them.” And why are so many gunmakers producing 1911s? It’s because there’s a demand for them. And not just from the “Older shooters.” We live in a capitalist society. If a product isn’t wanted, manufacturers don’t produce them. Rivan, the electric truck maker, learned this the hard way.

Every single semiautomatic pistol made today that uses the recoil operated design can trace it’s lineage back to the 1911, and the first “Wonder Nine”, the Browning Hi-Power. They’re both time-tested, proven designs, which is why new iterations of both guns can still be had. The demand is still there. Now, I have no idea what the Hell “aggressively obsolescent” means, but obsolescent items don’t continue to be produced for over one hundred years. If you doubt me, go and try to buy a new Edsel, or a steam powered excavator.

On to Hoober’s six reasons. Reason one is that the 1911 is heavy. Yes, it is. For one, it’s made of METAL. Metal is heavier than plastic. Take a two-quart saucepan and a two quart Tupperware container and weigh them. See what I’m getting at here? In my experience, heavier guns help steady aim, especially for follow-up shots. You know, the kind you may have to make in a gunfight. A Sig 365 in nine millimeter is certainly lighter and easier to carry all day, but the recoil is also pretty snappy. Compared with the gentle push of a 45 ACP round in a heavy gun, it’s a lot harder to keep your gun on target shot to shot with the lighter guns. And a 1911 in nine-millimeter barely moves at all, with all that weight soaking up the recoil.

Hoober also claims that carrying the weight of a 1911, even with a good gunbelt, is “miserable.” Now, I won’t use the term “pansy”, but I carried one in an inside the waistband holster, for far longer than the better part of two years Hoober claims. The weight was never really a hindrance, or even a consideration. Oh, and mine is a double-stack (more on that later) in 45 ACP. I carried that and two extra mags. Now, full disclosure here. I’ve moved to carry optics (see, experienced shooters are in fact adaptable to new technology.) so I’ve been carrying a Beretta 92 while I look for a decent series seventy slide with optic cuts. Then it’s right back to the 1911. And the thirty-three ounce weight of the Beretta is a mere 5 ounces lighter than the 1911.

Hoober’s second point is that the 1911 is huge. Huge I tell you! Huge.

A Government Model 1911 is eight and one half inches long. Let’s compare that to the Glock 17 at seven and one half inches in length. Why, the tactical Tupperware is an entire inch shorter! It’s so small it’s virtually invisible. And height-wise? Five and one half inches for the 1911, and five point four seven for the Glock. Yes, the 1911 certainly dwarfs the Glock, doesn’t it.

Hoober goes on to bag on the 1911’s seven or eight plus one capacity in point number three. Apparently in his obviously vast shooting experience he’s never seen or heard of a double stack 1911. Yes, the 1911’s anemic capacity is exactly why it’s the gun of choice for USPSA shooters, right? There are a good many double stack 1911s on the market today. Magazine capacity doesn’t need to be a point of contention.

Hoober finally makes some actual sense in his fourth point, which is “You Don’t Need A 1911 To Shoot Accurately.” You know, had I not read the entire article, when I reached this point I could almost think that he had a lick of sense. But then again, I did read the rest of the article, so this particular illusion was destroyed quickly. Of course you don’t need a 1911 to shoot accurately. You need practice, with whatever gun you want to be proficient with. Remember the title of this podcast, “It’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian.”

His fifth point, “You’ll Spend More On A 1911…One Way Or The Other”, makes no sense to me at all. He blathers on about needing gunsmith level tuning and polishing, decent sights, and other things. Quality pistols don’t need any of that. My double stack is a Springfield and my single stack is a Sig. I haven’t had to do anything to them. Run a couple of boxes of shells through them and they were broken in and good. I also can’t help notice the burgeoning market in aftermarket parts for Glock pistols. Doesn’t their logo say “Glock Perfection?” How do you improve on perfection?

And his last, most laughable point is “The 1911 Is Not For Newbies Or Casuals. To become proficient at running a pistol with a manual safety that has to be used, you have to train with it. A LOT.” This guy should really be an FBI agent where he can use his skills at using clues. To be proficient at running ANY pistol means you have to train with it…A LOT. I shot my first one at seven years old, so it’s easy enough for a kid to learn. Manipulating a manual safety is a training issue. It surely must have been traumatic for Hoober to have to learn how to use a slide or magazine release. And the last of his observations I’m going to mock, “A 1911 pistol has to be maintained – especially lubricated, and frequently – to run reliably. Everything inside the gun is metal; it has to run wet.” Does this tell you he’s a Glock fan-boy? Duh, gun no need have safety. Duh, gun metal. Duh, no have clean gun. This has always been one of Glock’s selling points, that their guns will run dirty. Good for them. If you can’t spend the twenty minutes or less it takes to clean your gun, get a Glock. If you’re like normal humans, you clean your guns, and they don’t malfunction just because they’re dirty.

So we’re done with Hoober. If I find myself with writer’s block at some point I’ll do another one of his articles, as I’m sure it will be equally as informative and entertaining.

Regardless of the pistol you carry for defense, you need to be way more than “proficient” with it. Proficiency only means you know what the controls are, what they do, and when to use them. You’re betting your life on this piece of equipment, so you need to be intimately familiar with it. Up to the point of actually pulling the trigger, clearing your cover garment, drawing, and acquiring a sight picture should be muscle memory, done without any conscious thought.

The only way you’ll ever reach intimate familiarity with your gun is to train with it. Buy a quality, reliable gun that fits your hand, get a decent holster and dedicated gunbelt, and train with all that just the way you’ll carry it.

Any quality firearm is going to be far more accurate than we’re able to shoot them. Don’t believe me? Fins someone with a gun rest and fire five rounds from your gun with it. It will probably make one ragged hole. So until you’re able to match the accuracy of a machine rest, spend your money on targets and ammo, and shoot the damn gun. Shoot it until it’s a natural extension of you. If you reach that point, then, and only then think about a different trigger, smoothing, polishing, animal sacrifices, whatever you think may enable you to shoot more accurately. I’d be willing to bet if you shoot a box stock defensive gun enough to where you master it there won’t be any doo-dads you can add to it that will let you shoot more accurately.

Remember, it’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian. It’s not the gun, it’s the shooter. Tiger Woods would beat me over eighteen holes using only a seven iron while I had a full bag of clubs at my disposal. An experienced shooter with a box-stock gun will outshoot a beginner with a full on race gun.

I used Hoober’s article make a point. The gun you’re familiar with and comfortable with is the gun you want in a gunfight. There is no “perfect” defensive pistol. A handgun is a compromise at best. As Clint Smith said, “”A handgun is for shooting your way to your rifle.” But a handgun is what you’re more than likely to have when the balloon goes up.

I carry a 1911 because I’m intimately familiar with it. I know what its capabilities are and, more importantly, what its limitations are. This comes from years (decades actually) of experience with the platform and countless rounds sent downrange. I’m confident in the gun’s abilities, and mine in using it. These are the same reasons why I’m carrying a Beretta 92 right now until I find an optic ready slide for my 1911. From being in the military and owning a personal one, I’ve got a significant amount of time and rounds downrange through the Beretta. Again, it’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian.

And probably much to Hoober’s dismay, I have no difficult switching from a cocked and locked single action automatic to a double-single action one. Train with them enough and it becomes muscle memory.

Remember, there’s a difference between practice and training. You practice the basic fundamentals of marksmanship. You train to employ your weapon as you would in a gunfight. Train like your life depends on it, because someday it might.

Until next time, shoot safe.